The Coming Greater Depression of the 2020s

While there is never a good time for a pandemic, the COVID-19 crisis has arrived at a particularly bad moment for the global economy. The world has long been drifting into a perfect storm of financial, political, socioeconomic, and environmental risks, all of which are now growing even more acute.

NEW YORK – After the 2007-09 financial crisis, the imbalances and risks pervading the global economy were exacerbated by policy mistakes. So, rather than address the structural problems that the financial collapse and ensuing recession revealed, governments mostly kicked the can down the road, creating major downside risks that made another crisis inevitable. And now that it has arrived, the risks are growing even more acute. Unfortunately, even if the Greater Recession leads to a lackluster U-shaped recovery this year, an L-shaped “Greater Depression” will follow later in this decade, owing to ten ominous and risky trends.

The first trend concerns deficits and their corollary risks: debts and defaults. The policy response to the COVID-19 crisis entails a massive increase in fiscal deficits – on the order of 10% of GDP or more – at a time when public debt levels in many countries were already high, if not unsustainable.

Worse, the loss of income for many households and firms means that private-sector debt levels will become unsustainable, too, potentially leading to mass defaults and bankruptcies. Together with soaring levels of public debt, this all but ensures a more anemic recovery than the one that followed the Great Recession a decade ago.

A second factor is the demographic time bomb in advanced economies. The COVID-19 crisis shows that much more public spending must be allocated to health systems, and that universal health care and other relevant public goods are necessities, not luxuries. Yet, because most developed countries have aging societies, funding such outlays in the future will make the implicit debts from today’s unfunded health-care and social-security systems even larger.

A third issue is the growing risk of deflation. In addition to causing a deep recession, the crisis is also creating a massive slack in goods (unused machines and capacity) and labor markets (mass unemployment), as well as driving a price collapse in commodities such as oil and industrial metals. That makes debt deflation likely, increasing the risk of insolvency.

A fourth (related) factor will be currency debasement. As central banks try to fight deflation and head off the risk of surging interest rates (following from the massive debt build-up), monetary policies will become even more unconventional and far-reaching. In the short run, governments will need to run monetized fiscal deficits to avoid depression and deflation. Yet, over time, the permanent negative supply shocks from accelerated de-globalization and renewed protectionism will make stagflation all but inevitable.

A fifth issue is the broader digital disruption of the economy. With millions of people losing their jobs or working and earning less, the income and wealth gaps of the twenty-first-century economy will widen further. To guard against future supply-chain shocks, companies in advanced economies will re-shore production from low-cost regions to higher-cost domestic markets. But rather than helping workers at home, this trend will accelerate the pace of automation, putting downward pressure on wages and further fanning the flames of populism, nationalism, and xenophobia.

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world's leading thinkers, including weekly long reads, book reviews, and interviews; The Year Ahead annual print magazine; the complete PS archive; and more – all for less than $2 a week.

Subscribe Now

This points to the sixth major factor: de-globalization. The pandemic is accelerating trends toward balkanization and fragmentation that were already well underway. The United States and China will decouple faster, and most countries will respond by adopting still more protectionist policies to shield domestic firms and workers from global disruptions. The post-pandemic world will be marked by tighter restrictions on the movement of goods, services, capital, labor, technology, data, and information. This is already happening in the pharmaceutical, medical-equipment, and food sectors, where governments are imposing export restrictions and other protectionist measures in response to the crisis.

The backlash against democracy will reinforce this trend. Populist leaders often benefit from economic weakness, mass unemployment, and rising inequality. Under conditions of heightened economic insecurity, there will be a strong impulse to scapegoat foreigners for the crisis. Blue-collar workers and broad cohorts of the middle class will become more susceptible to populist rhetoric, particularly proposals to restrict migration and trade.

This points to an eighth factor: the geostrategic standoff between the US and China. With the Trump administration making every effort to blame China for the pandemic, Chinese President Xi Jinping’s regime will double down on its claim that the US is conspiring to prevent China’s peaceful rise. The Sino-American decoupling in trade, technology, investment, data, and monetary arrangements will intensify.

Worse, this diplomatic breakup will set the stage for a new cold war between the US and its rivals – not just China, but also Russia, Iran, and North Korea. With a US presidential election approaching, there is every reason to expect an upsurge in clandestine cyber warfare, potentially leading even to conventional military clashes. And because technology is the key weapon in the fight for control of the industries of the future and in combating pandemics, the US private tech sector will become increasingly integrated into the national-security-industrial complex.

A final risk that cannot be ignored is environmental disruption, which, as the COVID-19 crisis has shown, can wreak far more economic havoc than a financial crisis. Recurring epidemics (HIV since the 1980s, SARS in 2003, H1N1 in 2009, MERS in 2011, Ebola in 2014-16) are, like climate change, essentially man-made disasters, born of poor health and sanitary standards, the abuse of natural systems, and the growing interconnectivity of a globalized world. Pandemics and the many morbid symptoms of climate change will become more frequent, severe, and costly in the years ahead.

These ten risks, already looming large before COVID-19 struck, now threaten to fuel a perfect storm that sweeps the entire global economy into a decade of despair. By the 2030s, technology and more competent political leadership may be able to reduce, resolve, or minimize many of these problems, giving rise to a more inclusive, cooperative, and stable international order. But any happy ending assumes that we find a way to survive the coming Greater Depression.

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics at New York University's Stern School of Business and Chairman of Roubini Macro Associates, was Senior Economist for International Affairs in the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration. He has worked for the International Monetary Fund, the US Federal Reserve, and the World Bank. His website is NourielRoubini.com.

If everyone is borrowing (Governments, private sector corporates and households) then who is lending? Shouldn't we consider the composition of borrowers and lenders instead of just the total debt? If you could please elaborate. Thanks!

The answer to 'who is lending' is the same as it ever was: the future is lending to the present. And the good news is, if the future dies because of the unbearable burden the present has placed on it, well then, we won't have to pay back the debts. Reductio Ad Absurdum.

This point is particularly hard for developing economies. Specially some South American countries, such as Argentina where populist governments with the excuse of emergency have shuttered Congress and are governing through the executive branch by Decrees. How should Developing Countries approach this new globalization situation not to be left farther behind increasing the gap? I don’t believe in a ‘free’ sovereign wealth transfer from G8 to G50... Always a pleasure to read you!

This is a point that we (or rather those doing the leading) seem unwilling to recognise. There is (and must be) an intrinsic link between the way we look after the planet and the challenges which we end up facing as a collective society, it is simple cause and effect surely. Every action has a full and requisite consequence.

This comment was removed by a moderator. Replies to this comment may also be deleted. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Globalization with world legislation is possible. For example if some GMO practices, or insecticides, or herbicides, or antibiotic feed are outlawed, one can check at the source. The European Union is doing this already. The reason globalizing world plutocrats stuffed more and more of the whole industrial process in China has been, precisely, to evade world legislation and its spirit. Now this has become extremely dangerous, for all to see. And it's not just the distribution of the virus by virusman, as if we were native Americans happy with our smallpox blankets... Just watch the South China sea islands... where China never was: what is the meaning of this? Forcing us to get used to bow to sheer threat of force?

"This points to the sixth major factor: de-globalization. The pandemic is accelerating trends toward balkanization and fragmentation that were already well underway. The United States and China will decouple faster, and most countries will respond by adopting still more protectionist policies to shield domestic firms and workers from global disruptions". I take issue with the logic of this nexus. First, I have not yet seen a trend to balkanization of any major trade relationship. Globalization, by definition is an interlinked supply chain process. As a chain is only as strong as its weakest link the concept of "decoupling", in my view, is fundamentally flawed. Will the US suddenly create a domestic cellphone, flat panel, semiconductor industry? Will the EU suddenly increase soybean production? Will China miraculously increase pork and aircraft production? Will an associated distribution chain be created overnight(relatively)? Although the recent pandemic has highlighted global interdependence, it is a corporate, not political construct. Markets and capital returns determine commerce, not governments.

While Mr Roubini’s analysis is plausible he does not offer a viable alternative given he seems to reject the only course of action available to Governments to try to prevent complete economic and social mayhem in the immediate period ahead! It is easy to critique for armchair analysts but difficult to deal with for those in charge of the nation’s affairs.

A key corollary risk of this trend to deglobalisation is the removal of protection for those countries which relied on the international system for its own security.

Several countries, including in the EU, in Africa, in the Middle East and in the Indo-Pacific, have come to rely on the international system - essentially led by the US - for “forgetting” about their security needs and focusing on economic activity. There was never a serious “guns versus butter” argument in these places.

Much of the economic prosperity of the preceding three decades (for the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East) and the preceding 8 decades (for Europe) has been presaged on this arrangement.

Several countries have used the international system as a crutch to complement their still-developing state structures.

As the US reduces its involvement in the international system out of necessity and the increasing inability of states to pay for their defense, local rivalries which had been buried may resurface once again, leading to a profusion of severe instability in several little corners of the world.

The UAE’s decision, for instance, to invest heavily in professional armed forces has to be seen, in this respect, as a timely move.

Countries which have not cultivated strong security and state systems are likely to be buried under the weight of their obligations, most of all to their own citizens.

One may sadly be looking at wilting violence and state collapse across vast swathes of Africa including in the Sahara and the Sahel, and of course, the Horn of Africa. To not mention, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, even Iran (though that’s a stretch).

The rise of the ISIS in several countries in Africa is indicative more of a creeping collapse of state rather than any new found love among the people for the ideology.

Since much of the current world order of state organisation has happened after 1945 and decolonisation, and the salient through this entire while has been the resilience of the international system, the current pandemic’s effects on global economic linkages and the political partnerships emerging from those linkages are likely to be of monumental proportions.

There are very few moments in modern history in which the whole human species is infected with the same threat. The King of Jordan has proposed this moment for international cooperation, as a divergence from the solidarity of Arab Kingdoms, in the current struggle for human survival of various ethnic groups and economic classes.

Yet we still disagree over the price of oil, the dollar value of a human life, and how responsible we are for supporting the value of other's lives in comparison to our own.

Putin quotes Newton's Second Law of Motion: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" as a fundamental proposition of international relations. The People's Republic of Chine (PRC) is operating on the same principle: "Accusation; Counter-Accusation". The American Trump Regime is doing the same: [Chinese let loose the Coronavirus] and American Lawyers (experts at finding fault in order to win in legal cases) believe they can blame the Coronavirus on China, thus demand legal reparations.

Under Natural Law, "There is no 'No Fault'", and this is just another example of international disharmony in which political regimes in power within the separate nations are suing each other based on who wins the "Blame Game", based on their contentious legal systems. As US Admiral Rickover predicted, this situation inevitably results in international nuclear war.

The Military Units controlled by their political regimes in all "Cross-Blaming" nations will eventually have to resolve the issue, again.

Bottom line is, which contending nation has the strongest military, able to win in the political contention.

The US and Chinese and Russian military contingents must all be fed up with this political madness; but in the end they all work for money which in every case is controlled by "The States."

I think we should distinguish economic from political factors. There are strong policies fighting against globalization. However, the increasing returns from human and physical capital give an impulse towards globalization.

The decade of 2020-30 is shaping up as a historical copy of 1920-30, except that the complexity of a global population mass of 7.8 Billion makes the equation very unpredictable. In the US alone a population of 336 million is looking at 30% unemployment? Zero percent tax contribution by large global corporations? Medicare and Social Security funding defaults? A wave of student loan defaults?

It's remarkable that conservatives, liberals, economists and bankers are not able to agree that, as we simultaneously deal with a sharply rising rate of climate related costs, most of the issues we face today are significantly related to a global population increase of 7 billion people over the last 200 years.

In the US alone in-migration has meant adding the equivalent of one Seattle, or LA, or Chicago each year since 1975. Our economic Growth model and our Quality-of-Life data appear to be melting down as our total population mass has increased, with most people massing in densely populated mega-urban environments - with associated New York size challenges.

Dr. Roubini's analysis appear to project a decade of grim challenges, unless global leaders come together as mature adults and build a new Quality-of-Life Model for all of us, with a serious global commitment to curb population increases before migration issues from climate change overwhelm all systems in the 2020-50 window.

One thing that has to be realised with China is clearly seen in what one of the former editors of the Financial Times Mr Geoffrey Crowther wrote in his book titled "An outline of money" in which he noted "if a purchaser is some one who wants D-marks in order to pay for German exports, the fact that he can get his marks cheap is equivalent to a reduction in the price of exports; it will stimulate sales in exactly the same way as an ordinary depreciation of the exchange rate. (Crowther Geoffrey (1951) p.260)China has followed an old western economic practice of depreciating the price of her products to stimulate US dollar inflows, rather than the current western economic philosophy of currency depreciation. China copied past western policies as seen with Anglo American Corporation when they sold copper at the producer price. As late as in April 1966 Roan Selection Trust (RST) and Anglo American Corporation (AAC) sold Zambian copper at £336 per ton and were under political pressure to increase their producer prices, while in the process of studying the massive Chilean copper price hike. Chile then increased her copper producer prices from £160 a ton to £336 per ton, while the LMEprice was at £753 per ton. What this implies is that Zambia then Southern Rhodesia sold her copper directly in Rhodesian pounds at a "depreciated price" and that stimulated inflows and her economy grow by 10 percent and her currency was worth K0.45 per US dollar. The whole focus of using the producer price system was demanding payment in local currency which in effect channeled inflows onto the local money markets. It is the same policy China follows as their currency regulations see the firms final payment is in Chinese Renminbi as also was the case of Rhodesian pounds with Anglo American Corporation. This naturally utilises the size of the local money markets being small against a sudden inflow of US dollars to push up the parity of the local currency against the US dollar. Keeping this value down means either removing excess US dollar inflows, hence the build up of China's reserves or print more local money to fund domestic production which in turn drives the parity down or both.It is this approach that the western economies used to practice in the past but now follow currency depreciation rather than price depreciation. The points pushed by the paper are under the notion of a certain kind of economic system. All that can be said is that economists in the light of the producer price must understand the fundamental of the supply and demand doctrine. Economics 101. Adam Smith's Supply and Demand doctrine talks of Country X with Commodity X with Currency X. It is the supply of Commodity X and it's demand bought by Currency X that creates a price. If Country Y wanted Commodity X then Country Y would have to change its Currency Y into Currency X to buy Commodity X. That is why a Euro cannot buy anything directly from the US until it is changed into a US dollar. A US dollar cannot buy anything from the EU until it is changed into a Euro. But for Africa, Latin America, Asia minus China and Japan the US dollar buys directly their commodities by passing national currencies and thus violating Adam Smith's market doctrine. It is here that using the current economic non Adam Smith concepts to international trade that there will definitely be a "recession" unless the tenants of Adam Smith are strictly adhered to in global trade. If not then the deaths of government may well be the hallmark of the post COVID 19 era and the rise of the Corporate State.

RE:"If not then the deaths of government may well be the hallmark of the post COVID 19 era and the rise of the Corporate State." Obviously. In fact, the result is not "then" but already is the deaths of government.... and the CONFIRMATION, and acknowledgement of the Corporate State, as states and nations die in chaos.

This is not an eventual end. It is already here. My only real reference is the country that I live in, the US. So, as a US citizen, when I review and see that the legislation of the CARES act effectively defunds the Federal tax system by allowing deferment by ALL EMPLOYERS of payroll taxes, the legislation has literally cut its own throat. The past legislation for dropping Corporate taxation to practically nothing was an earlier step. What is the real blow is at this point, there is NO FUNCTIONING economy, so no gas taxes, and bare minimal fed. taxes based on any fees, or excise taxes for at least the last two months. The legislation is one action. The inability for small business and large business to continue functioning as the economy collapses will further erode the actual business activities as they attempt to resume. The state has killed the state by defunding in positive and negative ways. The MNE and PRIVATE Corporate entities will NOT step in to replace costs for education, policing, road maintenance. These Corporate entities are MNE systems that only need to USE minimal aspects of the total economic activities of the state. The MNE systems can function with quite a bit of longevity while states collapse. The MNE's do NOT need the nations or the states. The MNE's only need a minimal amount of human beings to supply work actions at strategized intervals of time, for strategized time periods of different production cycles. As these production cycles are interrupted or shortened, certain MNE's can thrive by cannibalizing other MNE's. This process is totally independent of any squealing about it in any narratives globally. Most MNE's can walk over dead states, just like a lot of armies can walk over dead bodies, just like a lot of children can walk over dead bugs, or stomp and squash them for fun and games.

If you have an opportunity to view SAMSARA on Amazon, you may find it interesting. I thought it was a fantastic documentary. Even in that film, it's pretty obvious that the US is no match as an equal to China. China has bypassed the US. The will of the people has been eroded in the US to nothing.

The Corporate State is the reality today,independent of, and with NO governments.

I did not address any of the secondary consequences for the role of labor as the powerless participant contributing to the Corporate State, so here's a bit for that consequence.

As MNE's establish their internalized transaction medias to contain their effective power moats, because that is why that is occurring, MNE's are establishing their closed "scrip systems" now. Call it what you will, P2P, credits, freebies, cookies, tokens, or bits, but "private scrip is private scrip".

How will workers be able to use the scrip as transaction media within any enterprise systems that are still carrying that phenonomena? How does circumventing defunding any state taxes based on any income by workers work?

Present state level scenario: Many State Unemployment Trust Funds do NOT have enough funding for extended payments for long-term unemployed draws. State budgets are at present questionable funding to maintain annual budgets due to present loss of tax revenues over the last two months. Continued decrease of state tax revenues due to loss of ANY commerce will limit continuation of essential state and community minimal community and protection services.

Future state level scenario as the state continues to die due to revenue depletion:

The only TAX funding from any WORK will be taxes paid by any WORKERS that are still working, if they can find any kind of work that even pays them in any transaction media that can be used to exchange subsequently by them from their labor for any kind of goods.

If workers use and transact only within the moat-using-scrip their selection of accessible goods is what is on the moat's menus.

The problem for workers will be accessing any good that is NOT on the moat's menu. However, since they won't be earning much, they will be lucky to escape any garbage heap they have been restricted to live within. The fenced areas of movement will not allow much movement beyond their confined live-in-work-sites, due to disease constraints and public safety guidelines of the MNE/Corporate Entity.

The factories that are pictured in SAMSARA will be the new common herd quarters of workers globally. Some may be allowed to travel for the annual Hajij. The majority that are not confirmed by birth Muslims will not have that privilege. The rest of the herds will be born, work, and die at their herd areas of confinement.

Standing up to "China" is not a risk, it's a solution. What has been happening is that the global plutocracy has instrumentalized the Chinese dictatorship in recent decades. Producing cheaply in China has enabled Western Plutocrats and various lesser capitalists to evade Western legislation, and actually Western workers, their unions and their guilds. The same phenomenon helped considerably the rise of fascism in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. For example major plutocrats and organizers of the US Democratic Party, the Harriman Brothers helped considerably both Hitler and Stalin (Baku oil fields, Caucasus). They got medals from both.

That same phenomenon presided over the weakening of Italy under the fascist Roman empire: once the world's wealthiest region, soon it got deprived of work under Roman globalization. The dilution of the rights of Romans and Italians was accentuated by massive immigration from the Middle East to Italy, which changed the mood of the Roman population from republican liberty to Oriental submission.

Opposing "populism" and democracy is etymologically and philosophically dangerous. In the dying Roman Republic, the plutocrats called themselves the "Optimates", the "Best", whereas those who wanted a the limit on wealth be respected and redistributions of riches, called themselves the "Populares" (leaders: Gracchi, Marius, Caesar). Demo-kratia means people-power.

Restricting immigration and trade is not necessarily a bad idea. It's like restricting intrusions and injections. Those are needed when one is sick, but prevention is always better. The question is what are immigration and trade compensating for, why are they needed? What do they cure? In the case of Rome, retrospectively, the aim of massive immigration and massive trade was to prevent a republican uprising against the oligarchy which had seized power in Rome, starting with Augustus, by weakening the Italian population with a disappearance of employment.

Decoupling democracies from dictatorships will enable democracies to decouple from those who rule them, the globalists who have evaded democratic laws by making the deal of sending most employment to dictatorships. besides, it should make it easy to fight pandemics, as those are friendly to dictatorships and incompetent governments. Surely buying everything in China was pretty incompetent..Patrice Ayme

so.. what your saying is.... we keep making the same mistakes on globalization and don't learn...

I guess my thinking is that the blame must go to national governments in the west that let this happen... well the population is all wised up now and is mad as hell and this is a good thing.... it means things have to change or else.....

It is very clear that the thinking in this article is far more part of the problem, and not the solution.

Some of the risks defined are far more like opportunities than anything else…

I am sure the writer intended to enlighten us on the political economics that he understands… But the logic is operating on these out of date assumptions … ..

1. That those of us in the west are not able to modify our globalization activities..2. When we are down we cannot get back up without globalization..3. We do not have leaders that can move on the above4. We do not have a population that now gets it… in terms of the disaster caused by over globalizing our economy and our national composition and culture.

On the contrary… the virus will force us to rethink the above and develop …

A far more sustainable economy with far less imports and strong borders in all senses of the word,.

Less wasteful immigration and migration.

Local labor being utilized in local manufacturing… recapitalized to the next level of productivity.

The national slogan will be something like.. “Consume much more of what we make with our own resources”.

The most telling global centric comment was… “This points to the sixth major factor: de-globalization. The pandemic is accelerating trends toward balkanization and fragmentation that were already well underway.” … Good.. keep going …..And this is well overdue…. When will the globalist admit that this huge wealth transfer journey has been the wrong one for the west and that a global order is just not going to work with a high wealth gradient between nations…...

These globalists, who had their evil way in the President Clinton years, ..still try to preach globalization dependent multilateralism, when the solution is a move away from unneeded multilateralism and global dependency and a strong move toward localized sustainability.

We can only hope that such jaded, outdated and dangerous thought leading that still gets the press time on this site will soon be replaced with more realistic thinking that acts in the best interest of citizens of nations rather than these multilateral top skimmers.

Absolutely correct. The lack of self-examination, and the confusion of opportunity with difficulty in Roubini's analysis is staggering. A proof, if any is needed, that global plutocratization has replaced any semblance of intelligence or self-respect. Or then, maybe, we are encouraged, through example, to be stupid and self-deprecating?

My interpretation is that Roubini is simply stating the "Worst Case", much like I did when I was an analyst at the Rand Corporation. It can have value as a 'Caveat' (warning), but it only has advisory power, which those Elites in Power over our respective Nation, will with accept, embrace or deny IAW with their assessment of the real situation among Heads of State who determine the ultimate action of their own States.

Meanwhile, Americans are wondering what their own State Administrations, under their own Governors, will do, to solve the Coronavirus threats within their own individual States (now the Federalist position), since the situation within each separate American state is 'different'.

Still, the "Solution" is not up to the "Individual" which may not be loyal to the individual "State" or the American federation of "States".

The frightening point is that what we got, prior to this obvious, clear, yet foreseeable disaster, is the best case for the international, global elite. The global plutocracy loves its co-dependency upon mighty dictators. Yesterday Hitler, Mussolini, even Stalin... Now Xi.

Scientists are having their play. See demonstrations by Virology Labs saying, "Science Wins", but we have not seen it win this time yet. Don't see the current crisis as the best case for the [international] global elite who control the Money/Reward system for Mankind. They can become more popular among the various professions, castes and classes if they are able to organize scientists to quickly come up with a solution so they can take credit for a new vaccine that solves the problem.

The fact that Xi's China has through its control of Chinese industry, scientists and social organization been able to solve the Coronavirus problem in China much more quickly than the West is not actually surprising. No American corporation is a Democracy -- it is an Autocracy directed by its owners. China portrays the ideal of Ronald Reagan, "Why don't we run America like a business?" That is exactly what China has done, with its citizens being the employees and the success of its employees (not the elites) being the measure of success of the Chinese State.

The Dialectic between Communism and Capitalism was initiated by Karl Marx. His concept of dialectics differed from Hegel in that Marx considered the "interpenetration of opposites" as the fundamental dynamic of the dialectic, while Hegel insisted that the original [thesis] proponent and original [antithesis] opponent would eventually win the argument through what salesmen call a "minor close" that proved one side of the argument wins (i.e. the original thesis statement by the proponent or the original antithesis statement by the original opponent was proved correct by the side that accomplished the "minor close", and the side proven wrong must capitulate.)

Marxian dialectics claimed neither original opponent won, only the Pravda of the final argument which closed the conversation to ordain a "New Way" of Truth.

George Soros' theory of Reflexivity is a modern interpretation of the Marxian Dialectic (interpenetration of opposites) in which both reality and perceptions change as they interact, creating a consensual New Reality for both the original proponent of an ideology and the original opponent of that ideology.

The Hope is that the interpenetration of opposites and reflexivity of the communications between the US and Xi results in a consensus, not just a clear winner of one ideology over the other.

In other words, somewhere along the path of the dialectic, both opposing ideologies are discounted in favor of a new consensus.

Due to power imbalance and the present confirmation in reality of the Corporate State as the real power base, at least outside of China's boundaries, there is no interpenetration of any dialectic of any ideologies. There is only deliberate theft of any attempts by anyone other than the past-established-and-secured-elite, as the elite STEALS all content, all idea, all attempts to establish any alternative business enterprise systems, using state issued financial media, that has been made worthless at this point in time due to FED, ECB and other global banking system supports of faulty ideology of specific members of the elite, such as Soros. So, in other words: walk the talk is a whole lot different than talk the talk and blindside whoever the message is sent to, meant for or received by, especially if you can get that so-targeted person to also subscribe to any platform delivering any level, sort or kind of messaging with any relevant or appropriate intelligent context and content.

Unfortunately, you are correct. International cooperation is on the wane and the ideal of "Working together for the benefit of all People's worldwide" is the victim.

Note that America's role as the Keeper of Humanitarianism is now limited by our economic downslide.

We are regressing from Sorosian and Marxian dialectics towards an ideological consensus back to Hegelian logic - that only one of the disparate ideologies in competition for world power can win and the others evaporate.

This ideological competition now drives US internal politics, not just foreign affairs.

You may be totally right and correct that "it's political", as you noted earlier. I'm waiting for the Supreme Court decision that is supposed to be made sometime in June, which will reveal just how political, political is!

Thank Robert for the reply. Notice that you oppose the "US" a gigantic country the history of which, in the general sense, as the heir of France and her creation, Britain, extends millennia... You oppose the USA, and just one pathetic little man, Xi, aka "virusman". Research published in France today shows the virus was circulating in France by mid-December, at the latest. Xi is just a murderer (it seems some of the whistleblower doctors have been eliminated). Just as with Hitler, or Stalin, plutocrats (evil-powered ones) love him, and for the same reason: when evil rules, evil is in love.

I don't bother with Marx: that failed golden boy was full of hatred. His promotion of dictatorship of the lowest of the low is doubly ridiculous, and also hypocritical. Hence Russia ended up as the personal property of an ex-seminarist turned bank robber... For decades. Hegel doesn't seem important to me, his grandiose murkiness an invitation to Nazi lack of thinking. Only Kant, that slave-master, is worse.

Funny how much people admire German philosophy… Whereas Nietzsche hated it… for excellent reasons. Nietzsche explained it would bring exactly what happened, an enraged hyper nationalistic, Jew killing tyranny... A calamity.

My world view is much more driven by 'Situation' than individual leaders chosen by peoples to lead them through those situations. Without the abuse of the Russian People by the Czars of Russia and the Great Depression that destroyed the German economy there never would have risen a Marx, Hitler or Stalin. Nietzsche was the rejection of the Rationalism of the previously great German philosophers (Leibniz, Wolff, Kant) in the midst of German misery and the Narcissistic rise of German Nationalism. But after WWII the world returned to [Humanitarian] Rationalism.

Narcissism ("IT") is closely associated with Identity ("I")

The followers of Nietzsche's philosophy (Hitler et. al.) suddenly replaced their hopeless individual identities "I's" in an extremely bad situation for all Germans with "IT" (narcissistic identity with the revolutionary rise of National Socialism) with the new "I" that made them powerful as a unified peoples. This is consistent with Nietzsche's statement, "If their is no God, then I am God". The phenomenon comprises a radical identity shift from of the individual's self esteem (too weak to exist) to a nationalistic identity with the power of the Nation.

What we must be wary of is not so much the personal characters of leaders, but the situation in which they arise so as to avoid catastrophes. When things are bad, there are plenty of bad people wanting to achieve power under the circumstances.

The situation of the US and the World is getting worse currently, and we must change it quickly so as to avoid another catastrophe of social revolution.

Well we can now say that there is not one but 2 things that is globalized First there was the profits And now the covid19 is globalized And still there is nothing else that is globalised Like the a currency ,minimum wage, taxes,economic policies, regulations, labor standards, labor movements,and so on.The writer clearly critical about protectionism but not aware of favoritism what is clearly the stupidest policy advocated by the globalists. By favoring Chinese or any import with less tax components by the dollar amount not percentage than a domestic product that has tax components usually in a higher dollar amount than the total price of the impot is a laughable economic policy.This favoritism is necessitates either higher domestic taxes or higher government deficit. So complaining about high deficits and higher taxes on imports is just laughable.Nations have to choose between protectionism or favoritism and if you favoring the other team than you are not the right coach.

One thing the author did not address is what would likely to happen to fiat currencies. The US has managed to run fiscal, trade and current account deficits simultaneously and continuously for such a long time, thanks to the reserve currency status of the US dollar and the Petrodollar scheme. In effect, the US dollar is the greatest US export. Any attempt to debase the US dollar will threaten this position. The crash in oil prices not only bankrupts the US oil industry, but greatly reduces the demand for US dollar. Reduction in international trade might reduce the trade deficit, but will also reduce the demand for US treasuries by foreign governments. All this will transpire to drive up interest rates at a time when the US federal debt is at historical record level. Monetisation of government deficit will deal a blow to the confidence in the US dollar, which translates to a loss of confidence in fiat currencies as a whole. The weaponisation of the US dollar by way of sanctions will hasten its demise. The Chinese government is already working on a sovereign backed digital currency. They might link it to gold in some fashion. A massive currency devaluation will make such a switch more urgent. What will the US do to try and maintain this privileged position ?

Actually history has proven the opposite to be true. In any perceived detrimental change to the global economy,...actors embrace the US currency as the salvation. Buy low and reap the returns in a future recovery. This is the essence of hope

It's not really a privileged position at all. Once upon a time, it may have been. However, since China has done such a good job of learning from the rest of the world, and applying systems to their internal systems quite successfully. just remember to play favorites within China. The US has forgotten that, so in the process has been giving everything away.

It was exactly the abandonment of the gold standard that allowed countries such as the US to outsource manufacturing to low cost (slave) countries while maintaining a large trade deficit. The oligarchs in these capitalistic "democracies" exploit the low wages, lax environmental protection policies of these countries to maximise profits, at the expense of their own workers as well as the countries being exploited. No different from the old colonists, as far as I am concerned. Look at the garment factories in Bangladesh, the chemical factories in India (Union Carbide, remember ?) for examples. If the gold standard is still in place, the US would have run out of gold reserve a long time ago and would have to depreciate their currency, which eventually would have made outsourcing manufacturing too expensive. But their ability to print unlimited amounts of dollars enabled them to continue exploiting poor countries. Won't you call that a privileged position ?Just because China was able to turn this into their own advantage now has these Western countries crying foul. China did not stick to the script and continue to be treated as slaves. How dare them ! So they now need to use other means to keep China in their place. Hence the trade and technology war. Good ol' Blighty did not give up their colonies without a fight, and neither would Uncle Sam.

China has developed with difficulty and with focus a modern dynamic system of systems for the nation. China has really surpassed much of the original design of the US system of systems. Presently, it depends if the US is really going to continue to devolve. However, the US really is not in a privileged position. It is really more of a "damned if you do", and a "damned if you don't" position of necessity. Who really wants it? It is an absolute pain in the proverbial B_ _! China has focussed on it's internal economic development. It has taken 50 or so years to accomplish with concerted effort, what it has accomplished. It has been an extremely difficult task for the nation. China has worked as a nation and not really worked against any other nations. Leadership has been extremely shrewd in looking out for its survival and existence. The nation is only as good and healthy as its people. The US has effectively funneled all new production and development offshore to especially Dubai over the last 50+ years. The US citizens, and even the Nation have NOT benefitted, only a few corporate entities, and investing elite groups have.

These attitudes, or projected attitudes about China really are not relevant. They are not true. They are only colorings to narratives to sell a negative attitude for a quick profit. SO really, the projections are superficial judgements with no validity in the real world. The leaders of China and the people of China know that. The political leadership, or whoever is supporting that message focus do not. A lot of people may still "buy" into that message, but if a person wants to educate themselves, a real quick view of YouTube, can clear the picture.

Still, the US, as a nation, is NOT exploiting poor countries, or people etc. Certain people that run certain corporations are the real culprits. A lot of the real culprits are not Americans, but the MNE Money Funds. There are less than 10 international maxi MNE Money Funds that you may want to research just what they support and why. It is extremely complex, and even though I may theorize about their real negative results, even those real negative results can be corrected. However, the corporate and fund leadership are the people who have to make the decisions to elicit real change. I do not possess that power. Most of us are totally powerless. Only a few have real decision making, and influential power making positional opportunities. The people that are in positions of critical responsibility are the ones that need to make responsible decisions for the citizens of their affected states.

Most are NOT doing that. Most are Not doing that type of decision making because they do NOT know how. Very few people know how to make real decisions for positive action of the state. It is an extremely difficult task. Even Ezra Vogel's biography of Xiaoping reveals the real personal hell that the man went through on a personal level. Depends what a person thinks "hell" is. He did not have an easy personal life. It was not fun and games. He worked hard. Of course, "work" is relative too.

Presently, most decisions could probably be best relegated to AI systems. However, whose? An AI software application is only as good as the source code, so there is a certain amount of real dilemma in acquiescing critical decisions and functions to certain real and non-real actors.

There have only been a relative few real leaders for positive change for a Nation in World History. Deng Xiaoping is one of those types of leaders. The present POTUS is not one of those types of leaders. The World sure could use a few right now.

Anyway, last night I watched SAMSARA, it was a super movie. It could be an interesting view for you to absorb to put all of the Global view into a bit more of a perspective especially for China and the US. The "them VS us" posturing is such a stupid waste of time and energy for really any body and every body globally. The balance of power is really CORPORATE STATE VS Nation State. There are even a few more levels in that dichotomy that are really more exciting to pursue.

Perhaps the final sentence of this paragraph should be: "Disillusioned by the empty promises of mainstream politicians and pundits, blue-collar workers and broad cohorts of the middle class will re-evaluate the status quo rhetoric regarding migration and so-called "free trade," opting instead for tighter borders and a rebuild of the domestic industrial base."

It’s pointed out, though, that reshoring key manufacturing is unlikely to be accompanied by the return of the well-paying jobs which existed in these industries prior to offshoring. Instead, the cost increases of reshored manufactures will catalyse significant & permanent expansion of automation (I am not sure, either, whether that’s among America’s core capabilities?). In exchange for greater autarky, the average citizen will see prices rise alongside unemployment, a miserable pairing. America might be greater again, but their lives won’t be. It seems to me, as a retired scientist-entrepreneur in UK, that complex systems, having been subject to several shocks at once, have only two broad voyages to destinations which can come under any sort of guidance from the centre: imminent destruction of the organised nation state & whatever accompanies that, and a return to whatever is available of the status quo ante. The 1%, or rather, the 0.1% and up, will lobby successfully for a beach landing at the latter. I sense no coherent debate in the political or business spheres about a large-scale re-adjustment beyond a little tinkering at the edges, to increase public spending thus to firm up core public services, most importantly the National Health Service & selected social services. It’s interesting that any wish to move towards socialism (in USA) is assessed as being some huge threat & undesirable. I get that it could be, if the kind of person tapped to fund it is me. In both US & UK, it will be politically more doable to make these public realm investments through borrowing or monetary financing. Attempting to expropriate chunks of saved, post taxed earnings would make for amusing, anti-government newspaper editorials which are guaranteed to argue the case for their wealthy owners. The political left in U.K. are in such secular decay that Johnson’s “People’s Britain” is the sole game in town, with its own political wings the sole representatives of each extreme, each with sizeable share of voice. I do have sterling debasement on my long run risk tracker. However, beyond owning real estate in mainland Europe as well as in U.K., I lack the skills & knowledge about how one could best attempt to deal with such a happening. Any ideas? Assuming you have accumulated most of that which you’re ever going to make, what are you doing in response to this threat? Are not all Western currencies under identical pressures along with the dollar? If so, I can’t see the dollar plunging against the sickly sterling or the caught between stools Euro, can you? How?

And it won't be. Outsourcing of jobs was far cheaper than automating jobs. But Automation is less expensive than managing a team at over 400K for seven individuals. Unfortunately, this is going to force corporations that were actually outsourcing to just go for full automation. Which is even more destructive. Because indirectly the wages of these individuals in China within these factors will come back toward our Corporations through GDP and exports that are sold. But if it is a machine or an android... it wont need to spend.

Ten antidotes to Roubini's bad trends: human consciousness, balance, accountability, education, living wages, moderation, de-financialization, local agriculture, cleanliness, green energy. Where there is a will, there is a way.

I agree with Stefan. Furthermore, we need to realise that the majority of these new viruses are born from the abhorrent welfare conditions which animals are kept in as part of our food supply chain. We need to understand and act on the similarities between the Wuhan wet-meat market and the abattoirs around the world. Is the world entering a post-carnivore era?

In a way you are correct, however, probably not in the sense that you project in your narrative. RE: "And because technology is the key weapon in the fight for control of the industries of the future and in combating pandemics, the US private tech sector will become increasingly integrated into the national-security-industrial complex."

The present monopolies need to be destroyed by the FTC in as reasonable a manner as possible and to the greatest advantage of the individual citizens, counties and states in the US. If focus to allow a real separation of POWER for the individual and the individual states is not a defined goal, then only further consolidation and destruction of the nation will occur. Freedom of the press is essential for a balance of power within the organizational, functional structure of the US administration of political, production and distribution power systems. Present significant loss of freedoms for citizens in the US is due to the international corporate entity ownership by entities and funds that are NOT owned by a majority of US citizens. A significant loss of control functions of any of the supply-chains that affect US citizens is due to loss of US ownership of critical control production and distribution within national boundaries. Not much will change if the present hierarchical systems remain. The software applications systems are really superficial. The ownership of networked servers, satellites, trans-ocean communication cabling, power lines, rail lines, even waterways, land routes are really at risk. Disruption is being used as a password to distract from the real risk and disruption of the real essential national systems, globally. Real citizens are more vulnerable than most realize, and are being cannibalized unknowingly in the real subversive ways that really count as really destructive to all globally. If the present systems based on real theft continue, a world of chaotic depravation will be the new world order.

The present computerized processing networks can only create computerized control networks.

That sentence just above this one is most important, it is not silly, it is not a pun, it is extremely serious to the highest dimension.

This comment was removed by a moderator. Replies to this comment may also be deleted. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

BTW: The private technology sector is already hook, line and sinker in step if not pushing the limits of the national-security-industrial complex. Of course, it is totally NOT pushing any security, or any privacy for the individual citizen, which really counts.

The key weapon is really maintaining and promoting integrity, transparency, and accurate data to be utilized to offset inaccurate and corrupted control systems that are being developed and misapplied to allow internal destruction of state systems that can be corrected to function as designed, or with focused appropriate design and transparency. The primary key is to secure electoral process and integrity of the voting systems.

Right now, besides those two keys, it would be nice if the data on the CDC was reported with better accuracy, and relevance by leading commentators, and media outlets. I’m posting this info. Here because I think it is important, and I also think there is a lot of misrepresenting the facts so the public can use their own common senses.

(Please let me know if I have not presented the following data accurately.)

TODAY- May 3,2020-

on the CDC website there are documented and categorized as

COVID-19 deaths(U07.1)

TOTAL of 37,308 deaths.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/

"In 2018, a total of 2,839,205 resident deaths were registered in the United States—25,702 more deaths than in 2017. From 2017 to 2018, the age-adjusted death rate for the total population decreased 1.1%, and life expectancy at birth increased 0.1 year. Age-specific death rates between 2017 and 2018 decreased for age groups 15–24, 25–34, 45–54, 65–74, 75–84, and 85 and over.The 10 leading causes of death in 2018 remained the same as in 2017."

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db355.htm

Today, May 3, on the CDC website there are documented and categorized as COVID-19 deaths(U07.1) a total of 37,308 deaths.

There are documented per CDC:

Total deaths due to any cause of 179,859 per month over first 4 months of 2020. (719,438 is present total for deaths from any cause. So I divided by 4 for a monthly total.)

At the present deaths of 179,859 and based on that figure to multiply, to 12 months, total projected deaths would calculate out to 2,158,308 deaths for 2020 from any cause.

In 2018, there were documented by CDC: 236,600 deaths per month based on 12 months of 2018 per CDC from any cause.

A projected total of 2,158,308 deaths for 12 months of 2020, is based on the present 4 months of data from CDC. (My calculation hopefully without error.)

If the present monthly death rate continues, then the total deaths for 2020 would come to a total that is definitely less than the total deaths in 2017, and 2018 from any cause.

That total is LESS than the total number of deaths that is less than the deaths for 2018, and 2017. Since, 2019 CDC number of deaths has not been published yet, this projected amount, that I have calculated could be more or less than the total deaths for 2019 from any cause for US.

At this point in time, the total number of deaths in 2020 for the US may actually be significantly less than 2 of the most recent prior annual death totals for the US FROM ANY CAUSE. It is really too early to tell and reach any conclusion at this time.

At this point in time, the top 10 leading causes of death may not be exactly the same as the top 10 leading causes of death in the last 3 years. It is presently too early to tell, or really guess at any of the final totals for 2020.

At present, IF there were a pandemic, then the total deaths at this point in time would be significantly higher than prior deaths for prior years. At this point in time, the only criteria that is of any significance is that the top 10 causes of death may have changed, or possibly will change. In reality, the death totals for COVID-19 as the ONLY cause of death may not even get into the top 20 causes of death in the US.

Should you or I really be worried about any kind of advertised catastrophic medical event? Should you or I be at war due to any event advertised and promoted as any kind of event? What you and I should be very, very concerned and in fact worried about is the manipulation of data to convince you or me to go to war, especially over our own bodies, and especially if our own bodies are at extreme risk of being sold due to circumstances beyond individual functional control.

BTW: Everybody and their brother owe an apology to a female physician in Oregon, or Montana or wherever!

(Are you in a position to write a letter recommending my admittance to a “specialized” doctoral program at Harvard, especially with an assigned team of grad students to edit about 500 plus pages? I don’t expect much do I? What does that tell you?)

Suggest you listen to Soros' Theory of Reflexivity", both its general theory and its application to Financial Markets.

You are plenty smart for us to sync on his concepts that capitalists markets are driven by investors seeking profits, and that his repugnance at the idea that free markets create equilibrium is valid. I.e. it is the job of regulators to stop the "Boom-Bust" cycle. Investors will always take advantage of it, as Soros admits he has.

Sometimes a sense of humor is not very well tolerated by certain censors. Context can deteriorate rather quickly. It's easy to not stay on topic.

Surviving the coming depression within totalitarian regimes won't be assisting any of us if interconnectivity was really just an illusionary attempt to support good will efforts, based on principles and actions of the past.

The interconnectivity under the New World Order banking system means that the failure of one national economic system is contagious onto all the others. If the current super-bubble in credit and leverage bursts, it will burst worldwide.

Roubini's dire predictions are reinforced by George Soros' Reflexivity Theory. As Soros explains, a little bomb can set off a larger bomb (much like a conventional explosive inside a nuclear bomb sets off the super explosion.) The Coronavirus is a little bomb that can quite likely explode the super-bubble of credit and leverage worldwide. The results would be devastating.

Technology and more competent political leadership have never been able to solve our problems. Our problems stem from human nature, how we treat each other, how we engage in the international sphere, economically, socially and politically. we cannot address it with technology or political discourse of any kind, you simply cannot solve spiritual problems with physical solutions. Human nature was the cause of the crisis, meeting it with a physical solution is like putting a bandaid on a haemorrhage, well meant but fundamentally unfit for purpose. if we address the cause, we will mitigate the vast majority of the effect giving a better outcome for all levels of society. history shows a rather horrific trend of ignoring real solutions, and yet there is a growing number of people who are solving their problems by dealing with the real cause. Which wolf shall win? whichever one is fed the most.

My observation on your thesis is that the reason the Human Species has progressed this far in the domination of other animals, bacteria and viruses is due to our aggressiveness.

In the end, it is this aggressiveness that has allowed us to dominate the planet and other life forms that is also the reason we cannot get along. If we cannot achieve a consensus on our goals as a species (internationally), then we are doomed to compete with each other until the truth of the German Philosopher Nietzsche is accomplished -- the Survival of Superman (only).

Recall that Christopher Reeves (actor of Superman), like Hitler, committed suicide. This is a one-way trip (the idea of dominating all mankind, the world and all its elements) that cannot be accomplished except in the irrational mind.

Most of us understand this principle, but we continue to choose Leaders who do not. (Why?)

Just thought I'd add a happy note for the happy ending. This quote is from John Hussman, quite significant observation: "Rather, economies are endangered when the “circular flow” of payments through the economy is stunted. The most effective intervention is to direct funds toward that entry point – where spending by ordinary Americans enters into the circular flow."

https://www.hussmanfunds.com/comment/mc200420/

The real spend ability does count, much to some people's chagrin.

"What’s not needed is a public bailout of private investors in the secondary markets."

What we got is NOT what is needed.BTW, the bug is still just a little bug, and not the real reason for the coming greater depression. Although, it may complicate the scratching.

The decisive question is, "Should the rich and powerful save "The People" or their own power and wealth?

Given the current Autocracy and concentration of power and wealth in the 1%, the question is, "Do they have the Compassion to sacrifice their own interests for the survival of "The People", i.e. are they willing to "Lose" to save the lives of those they control? That would be totally contrary to the "Power-Seeking" nature of wealthy capitalists. So my conclusion is that they will "Appease the General Class", not give up their power over it.

Ignore the currency and political posturing of attached link: https://www.goldmoney.com/research/goldmoney-insights/geopolitics-post-covid-19

There is a lot of excellent context in that link. Some of the inherent bias is actually relevant, really needs to be paid attention to because the geo-politics, in US, is not focused on a high caliber of optimal functional understanding. MacLeod must have access to some NSC intelligence content to spin out that timely context. The US needs a real statesman, and none of the menu included or yet includes that type of item. So, in the midst of the squabbling chaos, that everyone is caught in, the more you can interpret your immediate position to your personal advantage, the better off you or family will be.

I'm rather biased in thinking that even a real statesman could/can not handle the national and international scale of drama of the present political scenarios, plus all their subsequent attachments. Setting up real functional AI systems, with excellent administrators of those data systems would be the best way to go. That actually is a recommendation to fracture government process with the creation of new points of input from local communities, with decision-making based from the bottom. If then people don't like the results, no one is to blame except them selves. If transparency is established, and confirmed, all accountability and subsequent corrections can be quite obvious, especially with appropriate legal framework. Upto 2016,Even the project management systems that were evidenced at the city government levels were quite good. A real start for accountable change was occurring. What failed was the subsequent accountability of "success" measurements in 2017. So that phase was most definitely the political game change routine, cities, and citizens were the losers. Presently, the game is to sabotage any of the transparency movement that had been started under Obama administration. Some states still have remnants of urban planning and accountability measures that are still effective, and could be re-implemented at the community level. Accountability is the key. Results measurements is the second key. Presently. those two keys have been thrown overboard, deliberately through sabotage of all principled action. There are a lot of guilty parties, this situation is not a one or two way street.

I found your cited link interesting. But I think it dramatically understates the problem of Chinese debt, possibly because the author isn't looking beyond the debt of the federal government, perhaps not considering the debt of myriad associated institutions (e.g.banks) and state governments and their associated institutions. And they have the world's worst demographic time bomb which only exacerbates their horrendous debt problem. Mark Carney said in 2016 that the pace of the growth of Chinese debt was the greatest threat to global financial stability. For a fuller explanation read Dinny McMahon's "China's Great Wall of Debt". So your article perhaps overstates the strength of the Chinese position...but I like the author's recommended actions.

I'll check out that book. China has specific imbalances, as all nations. Anyone outside of China really doesn't have access to get a good picture of the internal dynamics of debt based on financial imbalances due to policy decisions. Some of the cultural effects that create solidarity among the peoples in China may really be more important within the nation. External effects outside of their boundaries aren't necessarily crucial now. China as a political power could probably call any shots a whole lot better than any body else IF political leadership wanted to.

In reality there is no crisis. We think there is a crisis. We react to the narratives that are being produced at this time to "sell" to promote a "type" of crisis. The crisis is just a narrative focal point. Any narrative focal point can be used to sell a narrated product of some type. The types of narrative products can be written, in person-such as TED talks, TV series, Computer games. These products use varying genres or themes for the sales pitch. The sales pitch is extremely important. What is even more important is who a person has "ACCESS" to make any sales pitch. Right now the people with the real power to make any decision that affects any "ACTION" as a result of any particular sell is limited to only quite a few. Some are named, such as those that have seats in public positions of power, so-called "elected" representatives. In reality they are "selected" from only a very limited basket of options that are publicly presented as A or B. Presently, there is no difference between A or B in the US. I do not know what the options are in other nations. Some of the choice limitations allow for a bit more diversity in the final select of the A or B. In many nations there is absolutely NO selection process available to the public. It is always important to recognize and realize that at any point in time, who you (meaning any you) think is in control is not necessarily really in control of any thing at any point in time. That process is NOT an easy task for any one, especially yours truly.

A pretty reasonable epistle for May 2, 2020, if I do write so all by my self.

Back to your comment, in a way there is a political crisis that is an interim result to the desires of a few that desire to transition to a specific organization/re-organization that they really do not understand while they are in the process of performing any processes to accomplish any re-organization. The fact is that there does NOT need to be any re-organization. There does need to be intelligent focus for human beings to concertedly focus positive efforts to accomplish needed tasks that have been ignored for too long. There need to be specific plans developed. The plans need to have date goals established. Some plans need to be immediately specific. Some plans need to be more general in scope. The human beings in the local communities need to be able to vote in an accountable and secure manner. The human beings in the local communities need to be respected as individual human beings. The human beings in the local communities need to have an immediate voice in the determining process of what goals need to be accomplished for their local communities. The right to privacy needs to be re-confirmed and secure at the individual level in the US. The FTC needs to breakup significant monopolies of corporate entities that have totally disrupted real transaction and production capacities and capabilities for citizens of local communities. There will be some extremely nasty fights that will develop due to the essential transitioning processes to accomplish any and especially some of the critical tasks that I have only begun to enumerate, as I have just done here for you and any body else who wants to read any thing that I have written.

The present POTUS is an extremely bad example of any "front man" to deliver any kind of sales pitch to any other human being.

Agree, "Right now the people with the real power to make any decision that affects any "ACTION" as a result of any particular sell is limited to only quite a few." That is the real problem, and has the impact on society of making the typical person's attitudes, beliefs and principles "MEANINGLESS".

My reasoning, clear to me, is that our ideas and thoughts are our precursors to ACTION, and the MEANING of our thoughtful conclusions is the "INDICATED ACTION".

I.e. if our beliefs, principles, attitudes and thoughtful conclusions indicate action, but we cannot act on them because all decisions for action are made by an Elite Autocracy, then the intelligent conclusions we come to are MEANINGLESS.

Technology and Money and Political Power concentration under the decision-making control of the 1% Elites (who make 100% of the decisions for ACTION) renders everyone else's thoughts and conclusions for indicated action MEANINGLESS. Democracy cannot survive under such a situation.

Very valid. Plus, individuals are personally questioning their psychological/emotional stability due to effectively no personal power, at this point, including even possibly, most basic access issues to food.

The common citizen is being totally discounted as nothing, no significance. Each person is having to overcome that perception, if it is a valid one, and not just my personal bias, and fight to overcome being attacked in differing ways to the very psychic core of their individual identity. I think it is a very real war. This is a very perverse type of psychological warfare. This is not due to AI, but the deliberate corruption of software applications and processing of data. This is due to the actions of the few against the many. It's serious.

The article’s message is in clear contrast to the spirit the Economy as a whole and particular stressed and anxious citizens need now. There is nothing wrong per se in an elabotrated list of threats and obstacles (to which I can add 10 more in the spirit of more explanatory variables reduce the risk of error). Still, the sharp contrast between the detailed list of threats and a rather vague, general, promise to a bright future some 10 years from now raises other questions (which are beyond this comment).

The real challenge for economists (as concerned citizens) is beyond presenting a mere diagnosis: It is about pointing to possible way-outs. Not rosy scenarios but a detailed analysis of the unavoidable dilemmas, expected costs, risks and rewards. Moreover, if the perspectives are in so dep in the negative territory, practical contributions are needed more than normal times. As an antithesis to the apocalyptic scenarios, I would recall FDR's "There is nothing to fear but fear itself “ a phrase that marked the starting point of the journey against economic and social depression.

Agree with Elizabeth Pula. Roubini is often pessimistic, but he lives in New York where the morbid view is much favored because it provides narcissistic supplies for those who live there.

In contrast, this time Roubini is supported by most of the famous writing economists. Read the top ten like I do whenever they present a new article for public consumption and you will come to the same conclusion: the global economy is facing a long, deep malaise, followed by a "new normal" of reduced earnings and profitability.

Roubini in this article is just predicting the long-term impact of what he and every one of his peers is writing.

As always, Roubini is too pessimistic. Things do look bleak for all the reasons he mentions but men have a capacity to draw lessons from experience. Some of the most obvious lessons from the coronavirus is that our glue-footed science establishment is way too slow for modern life. Politics can change laws and policies, and finance can move money far more quickly than science can form a consensus on action. Secondly, local reserves will be valued much more highly. This includes reserves of essential equipment and supplies, as well as corporate equity and banking reserves. International supply lines can be maintained, and national underwriting arrangements for asset values can be sustained, but not as the first line of defense in any crisis. Defense in depth will have to become the order of the day if operations are to be sustained in crisis conditions. Thirdly, forms of national and international cooperation and interaction will have to be reinforced and de-risked by ending their dependence on personal travel and personal interaction. There's more to be said about all this. As Andrew Cuomo likes to say, recoveries are opportunities for intelligent reconstruction. We shouldn't miss this one.

I think you comments on the slowness of science reveal a some lack of appreciation for scientific limitations. We're talking the gradual revelation of new understandings, and that takes time. For example, we'll have to wait a year to discover if a new vaccine's protection even lasts a year. And would large scale investment in such a product make any sense if you didn't know it would last for at least whatever minimum time is required for it to make economic sense - knowing you can protect yourself by your behavior before a vaccine exists. And you need the other multitude of vaccines under development because we can't know in advance what will work, work best, or not work. Meanwhile finance people are just so much smarter about making fast decisions....really?

RE:"As Andrew Cuomo likes to say, recoveries are opportunities for intelligent reconstruction." I had to look Cuomo up on Wikipedia for more details, since I liked that line. After a cursory read, I even like some of his political moves. He's right on the front lines. It remains to be seen if he can stand with relevant integrity. He's made some critical choices that are for the state, and reasonable constitutional law. It is extremely difficult to make those decisions. That's what evidences the real skinny in the real world. Xiaoping was a leader. Mao was a leader. And I reference Mao, even though I thank God I did not live in China. Mao made decisions for China, right or wrong. Decisions have to be made for the state by a leader. A leader does not make decisions for the man. A leader makes the critical decisions for the state. If no human being has the guts to make those decisions, then turn it over to AI. Let human beings make decisions on the appropriate levels. If past leaders decisions were bad, eliminate or minimize the opportunities for a repeat performance by any subsequent leadership. Laws sure haven't done much of that anywhere globally. Laws can be enacted that never eliminate the rights of humanity. Right now, in my book, with a bit more evidence, Cuomo could be a best chance for the US nationally. NY probably needs him more than the nation right now though.

Transparency and any actions to counter clandestine political maneuvers is the real win. But those maneuvers won't do any thing to counter the Great Depression as noted by Roubini. He has the guts to use the right words.

The question is, which countries will make the largest relative gains? I'm going with the People's Republic of China, for three reasons: (1) The rest of the world is more integrated with and dependent on China than the other way around. China, more than other large trading blocs, can rely on its domestic market to revive its industries. (2) The PRC, while it is still not the most technologically advanced country in the world, is at least on quite an impressive innovation and technology diffusion trajectory that could bolster its productivity gains.(3) Due to the CCP's 'commanding heights' approach to banking, fiscal and industrial policies, I have more confidence in China than Western states in dealing with current and impending debt, unemployment and other economic issues.

China sure has, and may still. Hopefully, internal corruption will not develop further to destroy what China as a nation has gained over the last 50 years. China is one of the oldest nations, still pulling strings as the same nation. That says a lot for their wisdom in action.

The Great Depression was in part caused by the absolutely horrible responses of US presidents during that time, in particular - Hoover, but Roosevelt also did really stupid things - like fixing food prices and then paying the farmers to destroy their crops when the market price was lower than their cost. We are not so naive anymore when it comes to macro-economics, and so it will not be an L shaped recession. It will be a U shaped one - as a V shaped one is out of the question.

We are possibly more naive today. Now, it is an acceptable story to photograph dumping of milk, and crops, and keep the price control limits set for the families that are reaping in escalating profits, that aren't really profits, at the total costs and expense of a whole lot of kids in the US that are experiencing worse and worse lifestyle options in their current and immediate futures. What a great way to make money, right? See how the next rounds of rationing hit your immediate community to keep the price structure secure to accommodate the direct paths of the money flows that do not go back to you or anybody else you probably know. If you think all is copacetic, and comfy and cozy now, just settle back and enjoy the rest of the story. How much does water and fresh air cost?

You may also see backlash against authoritarian regimes who have increasingly justified their existence on their ability to fostered economic growth at the expense of civil liberties. Remember, economic crises can lead to authoritarian collapse, see Indonesia, Soviet Union, etc.

Indeed. Social leisure and discretionary spend oriented industries will pretty much dive instantly once the lockdowns start lifting, but leading in the first instance,to vast numbers of zombie businesses that are technically bankrupt or indebted to the hilt with government and other loans, but won't be allowed to die right away for fear of causing a financial crash (actualising bank losses), and fear of large scale low-end, service-sector unemployment - baristas, taxi-drivers etc. Businesses who somehow manage to not go bust during the lockdowns will enter into perpetual 'Greecedom' - they will owe monies that cannot possibly be paid back for decades.

The winners in the new landscape will be those currently sitting on cash (not assets - assets are going to be stuffed), plus those who own unique tech or tech patents, which may have value if theft can be prevented. Those with cash will be able to recreate entire industries from scratch, utilising off-the-shelf technologies as core inputs, and oriented towards those who use technology - remote working, creative/individualistic, bespoke, STEM oriented, high-expertise, etc. Accelerating what was in the pipeline over the next decade anyway, but this will instead happen now and happen fast. So basically, these new companies will be more productive than the living-dead they are supplanting, but they will employ far fewer people.

Balkanization is a word that sounds quite discriminatory towards the Balkans, and that seems quite lofty in regard of reality, words like tribalisation or troopisation would be more fitting in todays circumstances. Some de-globalization might be necessary, as COVID19 kindly revealed that human primates behave like primates in a situation of imminent and large scale threat rather than like humans, just like hillbillies can be speculated to behave in similar situations more like billies than like hills. In other words people, unless linked by a civilizational bond deeper than simply profit and purely for show of cultural superiority universal values, will first think only about their close family members and tribe members to the extent that resilience will be amenable to existence only through the development of local self-reliance capabilities e.g. New York city, Paris and other tribal areas should become self-reliant for food, energy, mask production and so on.

Thank you for pointing out the often discriminatory usage of the world balkanization. But in this case it might as well be very appropriate. The balkanization of the Balkans (violent break-up of Yugoslavia) did come as a consequence of a prolonged economic crisis, stagflation and the fall in productivity starting all the way back in 1979 and culminating in 1990... economic developments in Yugoslavia exasperated political weaknesses and were at the very root-cause of the ultimate collapse

New Comment

It appears that you have not yet updated your first and last name. If you would like to update your name, please do so here.

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Mass protests over racial injustice, the COVID-19 pandemic, and a sharp economic downturn have plunged the United States into its deepest crisis in decades. Will the public embrace radical, systemic reforms, or will the specter of civil disorder provoke a conservative backlash?

For democratic countries like the United States, the COVID-19 crisis has opened up four possible political and socioeconomic trajectories. But only one path forward leads to a destination that most people would want to reach.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.